thing I am missing at the moment.
I've tried the simplest of cases, manual as well as scale1d windows, and I can't seem to make it work. The windows don't appear in the surface preview (which sometimes happens I know), nor in the zone preview or the decompose by type preview component, which shows empty in the window type surfaces.
Don't have a case file to share really as I've been trying in a simple box with 1 window. Anyone else facing this?
Edit: Using the older Add HbGlz component (Jan 26 2016) seems to work, that is the glazing surfaces are now created and being displayed. However, I am now getting an error in the EnergyPlus component ("Solution exception: need more than 7 values to unpack."). Tried using old and new glazing component, using one simple zone, changing my weather file, the error seems to be persistent.
Edit2: Using the old E+ component seems to work.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
Meeting Agenda:
1) Discuss what the group would like to learn this term through our regular scheduled meetings. Topics include the priority and sequence of Grasshopper exercises we would like to explore during the winter term from http://www.digitaltoolbox.info/grasshopper_basic.html and Processing tutorials from the Processing Handbook I received from MIT.
2) Watch the Matt Storus Church Machine video and have a discussion about parametric and generative tools in design.
If you have a chance, please read the following article by Tim Love called Between Mission Statement and Parametric Model at:
http://places.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=10757
3) Discuss a possible design build project over the following winter and spring terms using the skill set this group is developing. Conversation led by Chris Nielson (please see comments below for a brief backstory)
4) Discuss possible applied research and design work for the National Conference on the Beginning Design Student paper, Machine Craft and the Contemporary Designer: exploring parameters and variables through making physical artifacts. I wrote the attached abstract and submitted it for the conference the past fall and it was accepted. To continue with the research I need to assemble a team of students that will help explore the principles I set forth by making physical objects with the cnc router. In exchange for helping with the research I will show participants how to use the cnc router, how to author machine code and provide you with the cnc controller interface software necessary to simulate machine movements. Not to mention, your work will be sited in the research paper I present at the conference at UNC Charlotte in March. More tomorrow night, of course.
Thank you for your interest and I hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Erik Hegre
Chris Nielson Reply by Eugene Parametric Society on January 7, 2010 at 12:02pm
All,
In response to Erik, who requested that I describe my intentions in a design-build project and to the article posted (definitely required reading for this group) I propose that we begin development of a project that spans the realm of "sustainable social" architecture and parametric design. The particulars of such a design do need to be made concrete, and it will be important to define the goals of such a project.
Therefore, I would suggest that this serve as a forum for the next few weeks for those interested in producing a built project. I agree with Nico that it may not be feasible to create the built piece, whatever it may be, this term; however we should have the groundwork and a plan in place by the end of the next 10 weeks.
Either way, I would ask that everyone who is interested to please provide as many concepts to this forum to begin a discussion. If you are indeed interested, please submit goals that this project could achieve (energy, socially, aesthetically, economically, related) and perhaps what you envision the project to physically be (shading device, public bench, water catchment, interactive thermal contraption, etc . . . )
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Cheers,
Christopher…
itects are at the spoke of a number of different specialties, and their work affects many different people. It's not like an architect is a painter, whose work may offend or upset the occasional viewer. As an architect you have a responsibility to produce quality work. How can anybody trust you with this responsibility if you're taking a purely artistic approach? What guarantees do you have that your clients money won't be spend on a poorly designed project if you can provide no rational for why your design is the way it is?
2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?
I don't get. Discourse is there to flesh out problems and agree on solutions. It might not always accomplish that, but what's the difference between talking about architecture as opposed to any other topic?
3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?
I'm sorry I don't understand.
4. What is purely architectural discourse?
I imagine it's having a discussion where you only talk about architecture?
5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support?
Functionalism and Rationalism are ideologies. Some would even call them methodologies. They are inherently philosophical things as they are nothing more than a collection of ideas and views. As a society we've decided that a certain level of rationalism is a good thing. The Enlightenment continued this trend after the Dark Age hiatus and it quickly led to a large number of very tangible benefits for almost everyone.
I'm not arguing for or against Functionalism as an architectural style. I'm asking for a measure of rationalism in our academic process.
6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ?
Let's find out. In the meantime I'll settle for a little functionalism.
7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?
Algorithms and algorithmic design are rational in the sense that they do not allow for ambiguity. But that doesn't make them rational in the real-world sense. These are not the same kind of 'rational's. I can make an algorithm that produces total nonsense, but does so completely reliably. I can also use an algorithm in a setting for which it wasn't intended, thus invalidating the results.
This is actually the crux of the problem. Which algorithms does one use to solve a problem and what data do they require? If you can't answer this question or if you do not understand the algorithms you are using (at least on a superficial level) then I'd say you have no business using them.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 12:48pm on August 19, 2013
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
ting.
Thanks
Rania
** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.
** Warning ** Version: in IDF="'8.2.7'" not the same as expected="8.2"
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a zone sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Zone input object. SimulationControl Zone Sizing option ignored.
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a plant sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Plant object input. SimulationControl Plant Sizing option ignored.
************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity
************* All Branches passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity
************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity
************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* No node connection errors were found.
************* Beginning Simulation
************* Simulation Error Summary *************
** Warning ** The following Report Variables were requested but not generated
** ~~~ ** because IDF did not contain these elements or misspelled variable name -- check .rdd file
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=CHILLER ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=BOILER HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE MASS FLOW RATE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE TEMPERATURE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE RELATIVE HUMIDITY, Frequency=Hourly
************* There are 3 unused schedules in input.
************* There are 5 unused week schedules in input.
************* There are 13 unused day schedules in input.
************* Use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayUnusedSchedules; to see them.
*************
************* ===== Recurring Surface Error Summary =====
************* The following surface error messages occurred.
*************
************* Base Surface does not surround subsurface errors occuring...
************* Check that the GlobalGeometryRules object is expressing the proper starting corner and direction [CounterClockwise/Clockwise]
*************
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=No-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31" misses SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31_GLZ_31"
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=Partial-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34" overlaps SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34_GLZ_34"
*************
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 2 times (total).
*************
************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 2 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 7 Warning; 0 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 07min 35.94sec…
d having the entire surface adjust while maintaining equilateral triangles. The closest solutions I've come across are the equilateralize and shell and plate examples for Kangaroo (images below), but I don't think the definition in the equilateralize demo will work because I don't always want 6 triangles around each vertex (I want a range from 4 to 7.) The shell and plate example seems more promising, but when I open it in rhino/GH it says the C# component is old, and the code is missing. Also, the shapes I'm trying to model are much less spherical than the mesh in the demo, so I'm not sure if that method will work anyway. I'm also posting an image of some physical models that show what I'm going for.
Any advice would be much appreciated!
…
t looking at it...She will join the conversation as soon as they accept her.
Thanks in advance, Claudio Original post from Claudia: Hi guys, I´m new in this forum and I hope I can find here a solution of my problem. I´m tring to do an energy simulation (and the next step would be the optimization with octopus) with honeybee and ladybug. I´m analyzing a floor of 2600mq with more than 2/3 of external walls glazed. I´ve got also 174 fins along the perimeter.
The problem is that when I run the simulation I recive these errors for each window:
** Severe ** GetHTSubSurfaceData: Surface Openings have too much area for base surface=EEE8110BF0A843E9A620_9 ** ~~~ ** Opening Surface creating error=GLZ_0_EEE8110BF0A843E9A620_9_A2E7F42406024C9A833A ** Severe ** GetSurfaceData: Zero or negative surface area[0.00000], Surface=EEE8110BF0A843E9A620_9
If i have understood well, according to .err file, the dimension of the window in rhino seems to be bigger then the wall. But it isn´t! i mean i´ve tryed also to put a frame to the windows or to scale them but i got the same results. Do you know why or how i can solve it??
aaand it isn´t finished! even if i checked my Rhino with "SelCrv, SelBadObject,selLine..." and i got "only" 303 surfaces and 3 polysurfaces i still can´t find the degenerate surface for which i have these errors:
** Warning ** GetSurfaceData: There are 2 coincident/collinear vertices; These have been deleted unless the deletion would bring the number of surface sides < 3. ** ~~~ ** For explicit details on each problem surface, use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayExtraWarnings; ** Severe ** GetSurfaceData: There are 1 degenerate surfaces; Degenerate surfaces are those with number of sides < 3. ** ~~~ ** These surfaces should be deleted. ** ~~~ ** For explicit details on each problem surface, use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayExtraWarnings; ** Fatal ** GetSurfaceData: Errors discovered, program terminates. ...Summary of Errors that led to program termination: ..... Reference severe error count=7 ..... Last severe error=GetSurfaceData: There are 1 degenerate surfaces; Degenerate surfaces are those with number of sides < 3.
Someone can help me? it´s three days that i´ve been struggling with this work, but still can´t find the solution :( Here i attach the rhino and gh file Thanks a lot Claudia…
ion, extract structural data, produce 2d drawings, and exchange data with other external software. Nemo also includes free tools to create parametric shapes, such as Naca profiles, hydrofoils, keels, rudders, blade propellers, and sail plans.
Born in 2018 as an academic research project at ENSTA Bretagne, Nemo grew up since, immersed in professional naval architecture practice with L2Onaval.
From 2021, Nemo is now available for purchase with commercial or educational licenses. Following license levels are provided to fit every needs depending of user activity :
Free (Designer)
Level 1 (Section + Hydrostatics + Visualization)
Level 1 + 2 (Section + Hydrostatics + Visualization + Resistance + Structure)
We can also help you make best use of our software, provide project guidance, establish specific workflow and create custom tools.
Requirements
Microsoft Windows 10 or Apple Mac OS 12 Monterey :
McNeel Rhinoceros 7 SR26
(Other Rhinoceros, Windows and Mac OS versions have not been tested but may work)
Additional info
Food4Rhino Download
Discourse Forum
Facebook Page
Linkedin Page
Nemo Website
Credits
Authors : Mathieu VENOT
Contributors : Paul POINET, Laurent DELRIEU
…
trying to develop it for my own project.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/shortest-walk-tapered-branching-script?xg_source=activity&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A1450323&page=2#comments
On this page, he shared few 3D coral difinitions and especially interested in first and second one.
First one( bunny like 3D coral) - posted on February 2, 2016 at 9:43pm
Second one( sofa like 3D coral) - posted on February 6, 2016 at 3:16am
I followed these instructions, succeeded to build Tetgen, placed the built files in C drive directory and tried to run the definition. Then some WindowsError came out as follows which I don't know how to fix.
My working environment is;
OS is Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit.
Rhino is version 5, 64 bit.
Grashoppper is version 0.9.0076, the latest version at this moment.
It would be great if I can have some help advice / comment.
I appreciate for your attention.
…
n in a C# component and in the Grasshopper SDK. Well, it turns out I wrote and it takes 1:25-1:100 of the time* of scripting components. So the 1:7 between rhinoscriptsyntax and RhinoCommon is not even comparable to doing things with the Grasshopper SDK. We are in Grasshopper after all. In turn, I assure you a C++ plug-in in Rhino will create these points even faster, probably under 1-2ms as a reference.
Should this worry us? In algorithm performance behavior analysis, it's not the absolute time that matters (here it's rather small and the sample does not do anything useful) but the asymptotic behavior: what happens if the algorithm is run with 100 inputs vs 1000 inputs, for example. rhinoscript runs linearly, so it does not add time complexity. With 1000 inputs, if the rest of the algorithm is also linear, it will take 10 times what it took with 100 inputs. This is what really matters!
Btw, it's been some time that I have been chatting with Steve about optimizing coerce3dpoint() and coerce3dvector() more. And I want to take a spin on the Grasshopper-SDK marshaller for RhinoScriptSyntax. They will never be as fast as pure C# in the Grasshopper SDK, but I think there's some space for improvement... stay tuned.
*it often takes less, and sometimes more; sometimes so little that Grasshopper does not even show it. You can see this better by turning off all other components: mostly it depends if a garbage collection happened while running a particular component.
PS: I attached all data for the samples, so you can test this on your system and see that I did not cheat :)…